aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Again, thanks for your feedback. I'm finding it very useful.
I'm writing a symphony
- Thread starter aggle-rithm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- music
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
You know a lot more about Baroque music than I do, as well as traditional harmony. You also know your piece more than I can, and your intent. Also, you know more about traditional forms, and think more in those terms than I do. So my competence at judging is limited.
I can try to listen with a trained ear, and with no habituation. As you know, once one gets used to something, it's often hard to imagine it being different. That first impression is important, and sort of precious.
You also have to allow for my distinct changes in mood. Usually full of vim and optimism from when I wake up 'til around noon. Then downhill from there.
On the subject of chunking, or breathing-room, or repose, I've said the same thing about at least two other things on this forum. But they were entirely different cases. One was a wall-of-text by a young writer. Another was the movie Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
Chunking, and/or making the form clear enough -- so that the audience doesn't have to work too hard on that level -- is important in all cases. But your music, unlike those other two examples, has a surfeit of pretty brilliant content, imo. Maybe "surfeit" isn't exactly the right word, but you get the idea.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Finished! Well, other than some polishing. At this point, I have a coherent composition from beginning to end.
Fourth movement:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10012914/sym3-4.mp3
Fourth movement:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10012914/sym3-4.mp3
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
As I mentioned in a previous post, the plan for the fourth movement was to fuse the sonata-rondo scheme with the quadruple-fugue form. The sonata-rondo follows the form:
ABACABA
While the quadruple fugue is constructed as follows: Three fugues, on after the other, with three subjects that act as counter-subjects to each other so that the three subjects can be combined at the end. Halfway through the third fugue, a fourth subject is introduced and is combined with the first three.
It's a pretty challenging form, made more difficult because each subject must act as a suitable bass line (invertible counterpoint).
My plan for the fusion of these two forms was to map the sonata-rondo form to the quadruple fugue as follows:
A - First fugue
B - Second fugue
Second A - combination of two subjects
C - Third fugue
Third A - combination of first three subjects
Second B - Combination of first and second subjects
Fourth A - Introduction of fourth subject, combination of all four
The trick, I discovered, was to make the fourth subject distinctive enough so that it stands out from the first three. One way to do this is to use a theme that has some meaning to the listener. In this case, the fourth subject is the theme from the introduction in the first movement.
ABACABA
While the quadruple fugue is constructed as follows: Three fugues, on after the other, with three subjects that act as counter-subjects to each other so that the three subjects can be combined at the end. Halfway through the third fugue, a fourth subject is introduced and is combined with the first three.
It's a pretty challenging form, made more difficult because each subject must act as a suitable bass line (invertible counterpoint).
My plan for the fusion of these two forms was to map the sonata-rondo form to the quadruple fugue as follows:
A - First fugue
B - Second fugue
Second A - combination of two subjects
C - Third fugue
Third A - combination of first three subjects
Second B - Combination of first and second subjects
Fourth A - Introduction of fourth subject, combination of all four
The trick, I discovered, was to make the fourth subject distinctive enough so that it stands out from the first three. One way to do this is to use a theme that has some meaning to the listener. In this case, the fourth subject is the theme from the introduction in the first movement.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I think that's the "B" section you're referring to...with the staccato chords?
IMST
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a W
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 6,326
Very impressed with what I've listened to so far. Hoping to have some time later to listen more critically and try to give you some more detailed feedback. The amount of work and skill behind this deserves a lot closer listen that I'm able to give it at the moment.
Yes, it was the B section that caught my attention first.
One minor complaint unrelated to the music itself: The overall sound is almost techno because of the synth not reproducing the instruments with the proper timbres. I'd like to hear it recorded with a better synth.
One minor complaint unrelated to the music itself: The overall sound is almost techno because of the synth not reproducing the instruments with the proper timbres. I'd like to hear it recorded with a better synth.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Yeah...those are REALLY expensive, though.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It's the one that comes with Finale. It gets a little better with each new release, but it's got a ways to go.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
Remarkable work. Held my interest all the way through.
First impressions, fwiw.
There was a spot early on when you had a Neapolitan chord going to V just like it oughtta, but when you *repeated* the phrase I wondered whether I bought it -- the repetition, that is. I don't know enough about Baroque music to know whether the Neapolitan thing -- b2 to 7 is always a final-cadence thing. That move -- the b2 to 7 going right past 1 -- is so strong that it's at the limit of tonality...
Then, shortly afterward (still maybe less than two minutes in) you had a really audacious section with bold modulations -- threw me for a loop, not sure where we ended up.
That section reminded me of Ives, almost: First Symphony. Where you get the sense that he's more modern than the style he's composing in, and there's a little weirdness around the edges.
There were other sections much later with almost-pointillistic switches between the wind instruments that put me in mind of Webern's orchestration of the Bach Ricercar, almost, in how quickly they were switching. Maybe the slight feeling of abruptness could be either emphasized or de-emphasized by the conductor in real performance. (Either smoothed over or made to sound even spikier.)
Overall, it's music that has complete integrity, no gimmicks, no padding. All substance.
Will listen again for second impressions.
First impressions, fwiw.
There was a spot early on when you had a Neapolitan chord going to V just like it oughtta, but when you *repeated* the phrase I wondered whether I bought it -- the repetition, that is. I don't know enough about Baroque music to know whether the Neapolitan thing -- b2 to 7 is always a final-cadence thing. That move -- the b2 to 7 going right past 1 -- is so strong that it's at the limit of tonality...
Then, shortly afterward (still maybe less than two minutes in) you had a really audacious section with bold modulations -- threw me for a loop, not sure where we ended up.
That section reminded me of Ives, almost: First Symphony. Where you get the sense that he's more modern than the style he's composing in, and there's a little weirdness around the edges.
There were other sections much later with almost-pointillistic switches between the wind instruments that put me in mind of Webern's orchestration of the Bach Ricercar, almost, in how quickly they were switching. Maybe the slight feeling of abruptness could be either emphasized or de-emphasized by the conductor in real performance. (Either smoothed over or made to sound even spikier.)
Overall, it's music that has complete integrity, no gimmicks, no padding. All substance.
Will listen again for second impressions.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Definitely something to think about. I was a little concerned about the fugal stuff being too rote, but my thought was to provide variation through the orchestration more than the harmonic patterns.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
Now I'm listening in my studio with piano and other keyboards, and for some reason I can see timings when playing the piece.
So I can check.
The overall theme of my comments past and present is that you have a restless, active style that keeps moving. No sitting on one chord very long for you!
The challenge in your style for the listener is a certain anxiety that comes with being moved along, without the listener being sure that he knows where home is, where he's going.
It's not exactly The Unbearable Lightness of Fake Tonality that I've heard from some composers.
It's not the Weirdness of Neo-Classicism.
It's not Po-Mo.
It's not rock-classical that's going to be bought by the Kronos Quartet.
You don't sound like Pete Townshend doing rock with classical instruments.
(These are all things I've heard recently.)
My point: You've defined your own territory, and it doesn't sound much like anyone else.
-------------------
The Neapolitan chord I heard repeated is actually going to E, the dominant at 1:12-1:15, coming from a patch on the dominant of E, B minor.
The strong effect of that arrival F-e-D# to E is somewhat vitiated by having, in the next phrase, an F# immediately afterward in that suspension, and moving back to B minor.
Then the really audacious move that I heard before is the f#,g#,a#,b at 1:48. This isn't what's so weird, although it's bracing: You've been playing with B as the dominant of E which is the dominant of A. What's audacious about it is the wild and crazy chords that follow, through 1:59 leading back to E minor. That's the stuff I was calling Ivesian. Tritone roots, or something -- not sure. This stuff is right on the edge of your style.
I like it.
This is immediately followed by a harmonically-settled patch on E minor, with the woodwinds playing the almost-staccato quarter-notes. You have a sly sense of humor, that move from the crazy chords to the stepping, conventional winds. A pull back from eccentricity, if you will.
Maybe: the biggest picture is conventional enough -- the longest-term harmonic relations, and the foreground note-to-note is logical enough, in fact always well-crafted, always lucid and logical.
The madness is in the middle between those two levels, maybe. (Or call it humor, wit, instead of madness.) The strangeness of writing a slightly surreal Baroque fugue in this day and age, with slightly odd restless modulations.
The trade-offs between the winds (and strings) that sounded pointillistic starts after the cadence at around 3:50. The intervals are wider, the harmonies restless, the bass not there. Nice contrast with the full textures that came before.
Because the bass wasn't there for a while, it sounds great when you bring it in nice and low and full at around 4:15.
The challenge -- I say again -- for the listener, is knowing when he is hearing a modulatory, transitional, moving passage, and a more settled passage in the "home" key.
If you want to make things a little easier for the listener, have longer periods of repose, and set them off clearly with your orchestration.
If -- as I suspect -- you like the slightly unsettling effect of all those restless modulations, keeping your listener a little off-balance, keep doing exactly what you're doing.
(Notice that I'm failing utterly to hear first, second and third subjects at this point.)
By 5+ minutes in, I know I'm in the middle, and expect everything to be unsettled and conflicting, so I'm sitting back and enjoying the fireworks, which continue well past 8 minutes.
Unfortunately I'm now a little distracted -- one of my neighbors is having his carpets cleaned by one of those incredibly loud vacuum trucks, and it's cutting through the sound-proofing and the headphones.
Music is fragile next to mechanized noise. Mechanized noise wins, around here.
So I can check.
The overall theme of my comments past and present is that you have a restless, active style that keeps moving. No sitting on one chord very long for you!
The challenge in your style for the listener is a certain anxiety that comes with being moved along, without the listener being sure that he knows where home is, where he's going.
It's not exactly The Unbearable Lightness of Fake Tonality that I've heard from some composers.
It's not the Weirdness of Neo-Classicism.
It's not Po-Mo.
It's not rock-classical that's going to be bought by the Kronos Quartet.
You don't sound like Pete Townshend doing rock with classical instruments.
(These are all things I've heard recently.)
My point: You've defined your own territory, and it doesn't sound much like anyone else.
-------------------
The Neapolitan chord I heard repeated is actually going to E, the dominant at 1:12-1:15, coming from a patch on the dominant of E, B minor.
The strong effect of that arrival F-e-D# to E is somewhat vitiated by having, in the next phrase, an F# immediately afterward in that suspension, and moving back to B minor.
Then the really audacious move that I heard before is the f#,g#,a#,b at 1:48. This isn't what's so weird, although it's bracing: You've been playing with B as the dominant of E which is the dominant of A. What's audacious about it is the wild and crazy chords that follow, through 1:59 leading back to E minor. That's the stuff I was calling Ivesian. Tritone roots, or something -- not sure. This stuff is right on the edge of your style.
I like it.
This is immediately followed by a harmonically-settled patch on E minor, with the woodwinds playing the almost-staccato quarter-notes. You have a sly sense of humor, that move from the crazy chords to the stepping, conventional winds. A pull back from eccentricity, if you will.
Maybe: the biggest picture is conventional enough -- the longest-term harmonic relations, and the foreground note-to-note is logical enough, in fact always well-crafted, always lucid and logical.
The madness is in the middle between those two levels, maybe. (Or call it humor, wit, instead of madness.) The strangeness of writing a slightly surreal Baroque fugue in this day and age, with slightly odd restless modulations.
The trade-offs between the winds (and strings) that sounded pointillistic starts after the cadence at around 3:50. The intervals are wider, the harmonies restless, the bass not there. Nice contrast with the full textures that came before.
Because the bass wasn't there for a while, it sounds great when you bring it in nice and low and full at around 4:15.
The challenge -- I say again -- for the listener, is knowing when he is hearing a modulatory, transitional, moving passage, and a more settled passage in the "home" key.
If you want to make things a little easier for the listener, have longer periods of repose, and set them off clearly with your orchestration.
If -- as I suspect -- you like the slightly unsettling effect of all those restless modulations, keeping your listener a little off-balance, keep doing exactly what you're doing.
(Notice that I'm failing utterly to hear first, second and third subjects at this point.)
By 5+ minutes in, I know I'm in the middle, and expect everything to be unsettled and conflicting, so I'm sitting back and enjoying the fireworks, which continue well past 8 minutes.
Unfortunately I'm now a little distracted -- one of my neighbors is having his carpets cleaned by one of those incredibly loud vacuum trucks, and it's cutting through the sound-proofing and the headphones.
Music is fragile next to mechanized noise. Mechanized noise wins, around here.
Last edited:
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
bump
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It's really gratifying to hear you say that. My goal is to make use of formulaic patterns to create something new....seemingly a contradictory goal that is difficult to explain; it must be experienced (sort of like Jerry Seinfeld's "a show about nothing". It sounds like a stupid idea that couldn't possibly work).